直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Sensor Patent Dispute Revived-in-Part Due to Improper Claim Construction

February 21, 2023

Authored and Edited by Guanshi Li, P.E.; Caitlin E. Fowler; Esther H. Lim

In SSI Technologies, LLC v. Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical Ltd., No. 21-2345 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a district court decision granting summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.

SSI Technologies (“SSI”) brought suit against Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical (“DZEM”) for infringement of two patents directed to sensors for determining the characteristics of fluid in a container.  With respect to the first patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,733,153, the dispute focused on the construction of the item (b) in the following Markush group: “a) whether a measured volume is out of range and b) a dilution of the fluid is detected while the measured volume of the fluid decreases.” The district court construed item (b) to require the consideration of the measured volume of the fluid. With respect to the second patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,535,038, the district court construed the term “filter” to require a “porous structure” with a certain size opening. Based on these constructions, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction for the ’153 patent, finding no error in its analysis. The Court first explained that the ’153 patent discloses two types of errors that the claimed system is designed to detect, which correspond closely to the two items in the Markush group added to the claim during prosecution. The Court found that this “parallelism” supported the district court’s construction.  The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s claim construction for the ’038 patent. The Court found that there was no support for this construction, because the term “porous” does not appear in the specification nor is there any requirement in the specification regarding the size of the filter openings. The Court thus adopted SSI’s proposed construction and vacated the district court’s decision granting summary judgment of non-infringement.

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electronic Devices and Components

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Guanshi Li, P.E.
Associate
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1653
Email
Esther H. Lim
Partner and Chief Community Officer
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4121
Email

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Charitable

TopGolf for the Troops 2026

June 11, 2026

Ashburn

Seminar

3rd AI, IP, & Legal Forum

June 6, 2026

Shangai

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP